Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Buddhapālita was correct not to state and defend a Mādhya... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Buddhapālita was correct not to state and defend a Mādhyamika thesis

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The purpose of Madhyamaka is to bring all disputation and idle chatter to an end
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Putting forth formal arguments opens the arguer up to endless disputation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Buddhapālita understood the spirit of Madhyamaka as set forth by Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bhāviveka demonstrated that without positive syllogistic arguments, Mādhyamika cannot distinguish itself from nihilism or mere silence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Candrakīrti's own defense of Buddhapālita required extensive positive argumentation, undermining the claim that no thesis need be stated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A philosophical method that cannot articulate its own justification collapses into self-refuting quietism rather than rigorous dialectic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga's formal logic tradition established that reductio arguments presuppose shared logical commitments, which themselves constitute implicit theses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Buddhapālita's prasaṅga reasoning implicitly endorses the contradictory of the opponent's thesis, making thesis-avoidance logically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language3 linked

    Related

    A philosophical method that cannot articulate its own justification collapses in...Avoiding formal arguments prevents persistent opponents from treating the argume...Bhāviveka demonstrated that without positive syllogistic arguments, Mādhyamika c...Buddhapālita understood the spirit of Madhyamaka as set forth by Nāgārjuna and Ā...
    +5 moreShow less
    Buddhapālita's prasaṅga reasoning implicitly endorses the contradictory of the o...Candrakīrti's own defense of Buddhapālita required extensive positive argumentat...Dignāga's formal logic tradition established that reductio arguments presuppose ...Putting forth formal arguments opens the arguer up to endless disputationThe purpose of Madhyamaka is to bring all disputation and idle chatter to an end

    Similar

    Skeptical arguments that rely on the KK thesis can be disarmed by reje...78%An objection that assumes the falsity of a thesis it is meant to refut...78%The Dershowitz-Gurevich claim to have vindicated the Church-Turing the...77%Bhāvaviveka's criticism of Buddhapālita rested on the assumption that ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: madhyamaka
    View source passageHide passage
    As was discussed above (section 4.2), Bhāvaviveka criticized Buddhapālita for failing to state and defend the thesis of the Mādhyamikas. In the first chapter of his commentary to MMK, Candrakīrti comes to Buddhapālita’s defense and offers a sustained criticism of Bhāvaviveka, and of the tradition of Dignāga on whom Bhāvaviveka had based much of his approach. Bhāvaviveka’s call for an independent argument in favor of a conclusion accepted by Mādhyamikas, says Candrakīrti, is diametrically oppos
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit